Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and R.K. Batta, Member
NEW ERA ENTERPRISES - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
Original Petition No. 182 of 2000
Decided on : 18-08-2010
Authorised Representative., for the Appellant; Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for proven theft and is obligated to settle claims within a reasonable time.
Headnote:
Insurance - Burglary - Section 380, IPC - Fire Policy B, Misc. accidental insurance policy - [Section 380, IPC, Fire Policy B, Misc. accidental insurance policy] - The court discussed the occurrence of burglary, the value of stolen goods, the survey reports, and the insurance company's liability. The court found the theft to be proven and concluded that the insurance company was deficient in service, ordering it to pay compensation with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an insurance policyholder, alleged burglary and theft of medicines worth Rs. 20,12,235 from their godown. The insurance company contested the claim, alleging fraud and denying liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the theft was proven based on police reports and evidence. It also found the surveyor's reports to be arbitrary and concluded that the insurance company was deficient in service.
Issues: The main issues were whether burglary had occurred and whether the stolen medicines were worth Rs. 20,12,235.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on police reports, surveyor reports, and evidence of the stolen goods to establish the occurrence of theft and the insurance company's deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint, directing the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 18,85,707.25 with interest and costs to the complainant.
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member - Complaint was filed impleading New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Saharanpur Branch as opposite party No. 1, Anil Kumar Gupta, preliminary Surveyor as opposite party No. 2, Sanjeev Soni, final Surveyor-cum-Investigator as opposite party No. 3 and Bank of India, financier as opposite party No. 4. Vide order dated 19th December, 2000, notice was ordered to be issued only to opposite party No. 1-Insurance Company Complainant who has been dealing in medicines, had purchased fire policy B bearing No. 11/10383, valid from 28.2.1998 to 27.2.1999 for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 (Rs. 19,50,000 for all types of medicines, Rs. 30,000 for computer and Rs. 20,000 for furniture, fixture and fittings) from the opposite party-Insurance Company. Another policy-Misc. accidental insurance policy No. 46/7941 operative from 28.2.1998 to 27.2.1999 for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 was further purchased by the complainant from the said Insurance Company. Complainant was appointed as sole distributor by M/s. Indo Chem Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. under the MOU dated 4.12.1998 effective from 1.12.1998. It was alleged that during the intervening night of 5/6.1.1999, godown of the complainant at 1, Choudhary Market, Malhipur Road, Saharanpur was burgled and medicines worth Rs. 20,12,235 were stolen therefrom. Theft was detected by Vinod Tyagi, manager of the complainant on 6.1.1999. Shri Tyagi lodged report of the theft with P.S. Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur on 6.1.1999 on the basis whereof FIR under Section 380, I.P.C. was registered. Insurance Company was intimated of the theft by the letter dated 6.1.1999. Formal claim was also lodged on 13/14.1.1999 with the Opposite party - Insurance Company. Insurance Company appointed Anil Kumar Gupta, preliminary Surveyor. It further appointed Sanjeev Soni as final Surveyor-cum-Investigator. On claim not being settled, complaint attributing deficiency in service was filed seeking direction to the Insurance Company to pay amount of Rs. 20,12,235 towards compensation with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs. 20,00,000 as compensation towards mental and physical agony and cost.
2. Opposite party 1-Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing written version. Issuance of two policies in question in favour of the complainant was not denied. It was also not denied that on receiving intimation regarding theft, the Insurance Company deputed preliminary Surveyor and final Surveyor-cum-Investigator. However, it was alleged that on investigation the police found that alleged theft was not committed in the godown. Preliminary Surveyor submitted the report dated 28th January, 1999. Final Surveyor-cum-Investigator also submitted the report dated 22nd January, 2001. For the reasons given in para No. 9 of the written version, the final Surveyor concluded that the claim was fraudulent. Considering the said two reports and the documents, the Insurance Company, therefore, disowned the liability to pay the claim being fraudulent. It was denied that medicines worth Rs. 20,12,235 were stored in the godown. It was stated that as the complainant was the agent of M/s. Indo Chem Private Limited the medicines were held by it in trust and it is not entitled to any compensation.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version of the Insurance Company. It was alleged that when the complainant came to know that the officials of the Insurance Company had managed to get a false negative report dated 7.1.1999 from the police, the complainant filed an application before the DIG. for fresh investigation. D.I.G. entrusted the case to P.S. Kutabsher Thana for fresh investigation. During investigation the police collected ample evidence proving the occurrence of theft but it was unable to trace out the real culprit and to recover the stolen medicines. Final report submitted by the latter police station was accepted on 27.5.1999 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. It was further alleged that Sanjiv Soni, final Surveyor contacted
